Civil, Secular Authorities and Marriage
This is a critique of the following post, and related ideas:
(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan
The guy that wrote that post has a tendency to make his blog temporarily private once he sees I’ve linked to one of his posts, then he makes it public again after so many weeks. You can read more about that wacko situation (Link): here, here, and here.
Lately, on other sites, there has been discussion on whether or not Christian preachers should stop holding weddings altogether, or if Christian preachers should only perform weddings for Christians…
In other words, some Christians are so upset over the possibility of Christians being forced to perform same-sex marriage, some are thinking that maybe Christians should not have anything to do with the government or secular groups in regards to marriage.
Here are a few links about the situation:
(Link): Pastors Sign Pledge to Separate Christian, Civil Marriage – via CBN site
Excerpt, from CBN article::
- A new LifeWay Research survey on marriage and an online pledge drive shows support for a movement to further separate church and state roles in marriage.
- Six in 10 responding to the survey said the government should not define or regulate marriage. More than a third also said that clergy should get out of the civil marriage business.
I am not necessarily in agreement with all views by this blogger or this particular page, but it’s a critique of the Marriage Pledge position by Protestant Christians:
- Their heirs, especially the Puritans and later the neo-Reformers, knew that all of life must be Christian, and to be Christian, it must be biblical.
- The Bible provides the guidelines on what all of life, including the state, should look like. If the state is anti-biblical, you need to work to make it biblical, just as you would do in the family and church. You don’t get to opt out of them.
- …But this option of cultural withdrawal isn’t available to the neo-Reformers. Douglas Wilson has offered several excellent practical, pastoral objections to The Marriage Pledge.
- I would add that The Marriage Pledge is flawed at its root.The state, no matter how perverse, has a vested interest in marriage (will the church enforce disposition of children and property in the case of divorce? Hardly. And if she did, who would enforce the enforcement?). Should the church “disentangle” itself from the family since the family, too, is being redefined?
- To be sure: the state can and does act unjustly (“no-fault divorce,” etc.). But the alternative isn’t anarchy, which despite its best intentions, is what The MArriage Pledge is suggesting. The state, even an apostate one, has a legitimate vested interest in marriage and the welfare of children springing from it.
Some Christians have a weirdo, odd ball view point that Christians marrying HETERO couples in today’s climate somehow is associated with the marriage of HOMOsexual couples.
I have written of this topic before, like here:
- (Link): Kook Christian Groups/Individuals and Their Nutty Beliefs on ProCreation and What Constitutes Being Unequally Yoked
Yes, there are some Christian kooks who are teaching other Christians that if you, a hetero Christian, gets married in a state that has legalized homosexual marriage, this somehow invalidates YOUR (hetero) marriage.
These Christian kooks are teaching if you are a HETERO, Christian VIRGIN, yet marry your spouse in a state where homosexual marriage is also legal, this means you are NOT EQUALLY YOKED to your spouse because your entire marriage is invalidated, and they seem to imply you are sexually impure by extension.
And doesn’t the God of the Bible say he does not hold the sins of the father against the sons, that each person is responsible only for his or her own sins?
So what gives with Christians who are teaching this heresy that a hetero, Christian marriage magically becomes improper or sinfully tainted if it was held in a state where homosexuals are permitted to marry? God does not hold the sins of homosexuals against hetero Christians.
Anyway, this John Morgan guy seems to argue along a similar line in his post,
(Link): The Euphemism Of Marriage by J. Morgan
My intent here is not to copy tons and tons of this guy’s post, but it’s so hard to find just one or two paragraphs that summarize his thoughts here, I’m not sure what parts to excerpt.
- …We hear euphemisms everyday: Correctional facility instead of prison, collateral damage instead of accidental deaths, enhanced interrogation techniques instead of torture, pregnancy termination instead of abortion, etc.
- We can add one more – marriage. Turning to the Oxford Dictionary again, we see that marriage is: “The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.” In short, it’s a legal sexual relationship recognized by the state you live in.